STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 453 of 2018

Rahul Son of Dr. Raj Shekhar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Chandi, Rajwara, PO- Rajwara Bhahpur, PS- Bela, District- Sitamarhi

                                                                                                                                                   … Complainant/Appellant

Versus

The Branch manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Kargil Chowk, Dumara Road, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi

                                                                                                                                             ….  Opposite Party/Respondent

Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Alok Kumar Jha

Counsel for the respondent: Adv. Vikash Chandra Srivastava

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 03.04.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

Present appeal has been filed by the appellant /complainant for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case no. 05 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has dismissed the Consumer Complaint case filed by appellant/complainant as not maintainable.

          Briefly stated the facts of the case is that the complainant had purchased a Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. BR-06-PA-3855 on making payment of Rs. 5,70,000/- (Five lacs seventy thousand) to the dealer of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd. for a sum assured amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- for the period from 01.09.2010 to 31.08.2011.

          The vehicle of the complainant was stolen by unknown miscreants on 21.11.2010 for which complainant lodged an FIR giving rise to Sitamarhi PS case no. 644 of 2010. Stolen vehicle could not be recovered. After investigation police submitted final form in the court of CJM as case to be true but without any clue and same was accepted by the C.J.M.

          The complainant filed claim in the office of national Insurance Company for payment of sum assured amount but no decision was taken by the insurance company to settle the claim. Thereafter, he gave a legal notice dated 22.08.2013 and 30.11.2013  but no response was received from the insurance company. Complainant thereafter  filed a Consumer Complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Sitamarhi in which notices were issued to the insurance company and they appeared and filed their written statement.

          It was contended in the written statement that complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as vehicle is used for commercial purpose.  It was further stated in the written statement that insurance company appointed a surveyor who submitted report that said vehicle was parked on main road in open place and necessary care and caution was not exhibited by the owner of the vehicle for safety and security of the vehicle which is violation of terms and condition of insurance policy and as such insurance company is not liable to compensate the complainant.

          The District Consumer Forum considered the issue of maintainability of the complaint as to whether complainant comes within the definition of consumer under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after considering the evidence placed on record held that that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose as such complainant is not a consumer, hence complaint case is not maintainable and dismissed the consumer complaint case as not maintainable.

          Aggrieved by dismissal of consumer Complaint case, complainant has filed this appeal.

          It is submitted on behalf of counsel of the appellant that dismissal of consumer Compliant as not maintainable is erroneous in law. It is now well settled preposition of law that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and there is no commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage as held in M/S. Harsolia Motors vs M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd on 3 December, 2004 2005 (1) CPJ (NC) 27,  & and followed in 2023 CPJ 126 (NC),

          Counsel for the respondent insurance company has defended the impugned order and has relied upon order passed in Revision Petition no. 1249 of 2013 of NCDRC, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 3095 of 2014 of NCDRC, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 3860 of 2011 of NCDRC, New Delhi, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, Complaint Case no. CC/109/2012 of A.P. SCDRC, at Hydrabad & Civil Appeal no. 5466 of 2012 of Supreme Court of India. However, judgments cited has no application in issue involved in present appeal.

          In said view of the matter the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sitarmarhi is not sustainable in eye of law and accordingly, set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum, Sitamarhi treating it to be maintainable and to decide the Consumer complaint case on merit within 90 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of order passed by this Commission.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                          (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama